Milk is basically mucus. If you like drinking it, at least get a well-rounded picture of what it is.

Originally Posted by Rollfast

38 minutes of some bug eyed elderly lady on Japanese TV is hogwash, thank you.

I'm seriously thinking of asking to have the thread closed if I see anything more ludicrous...I'm truly sorry.

"38 minutes of some bug eyed elderly lady on Japanese TV is hogwash"
....... Obviously you did not watch the video -- or you would know that your statement has no basis in reality or fact.

And, sorry that the video speared one of your (forgive the pun) sacred cows... But that was the whole point of the video: to debunk the myth put out there by the hundreds of millions of advertising dollars from the Dairy industry to convince the American public that milk is the PERFECT food...

The other thing the video did, if you actually watched it, was to demonstrate how the USDA is controlled by the industries it is supposed to regulate -- so it gets used as a mouth piece by the dairy industry and reinforces the myth. And it also uses tax payer dollars to subsidize those industries through such things as the WIC and school lunch programs.

Yes, it is true, milk has some good things in it (especially for growing kids) -- but it also has a lot of bad things in it that promote chronic diseases such as cancers, auto-immune diseases as well as heart disease.

This argument that milk is for babies is just an ideological thing, it's like saying that bananas are for monkeys... .

Milk is literally produced for the benefit of a specie's babies, whereas bananas are produced for the benefit of the banana plant, not for the benefit of monkeys. The only food we consume that was evolved for our benefit is the milk of our mothers. Everything else we eat is predation of other species. There are some instances where that's mutually beneficial, like the example of fruit I gave earlier. But even there the fruit was evolved for the benefit of the plant, not for the benefit of the animal that eats the fruit.

Milk is literally produced for the benefit of a specie's babies, whereas bananas are produced for the benefit of the banana plant, not for the benefit of monkeys. The only food we consume that was evolved for our benefit is the milk of our mothers. Everything else we eat is predation of other species. There are some instances where that's mutually beneficial, like the example of fruit I gave earlier. But even there the fruit was evolved for the benefit of the plant, not for the benefit of the animal that eats the fruit.

This is true, but you have to remember that we didn't evolve in a vacuum. There are nutrients in food that do not exist for our benefit, but our species has evolved to take advantage of a food that perhaps some earlier species could not. It may be milk or it may be a banana. Some of us are able to digest one or both. Humans have had a long time to adapt to eating bananas and quite a bit less time to milk. Because of that, milk can be more problematic.

You know we all carry around the ability to digest insect shells. Just because you are able to digest a certain food doesn't mean you have to.

I don't drink much milk unless I can get it raw and for us that is usually goat's milk we get from a friend... my wife finds it much easier to digest than cow's milk although she has gotten better with this over the past three to four years as she has dealt with celiac disease which impaired her ability to digest dairy products.

I do use a lot of heavier cream (18% and 35%) in coffee and cooking... it adds a good amount of calories with no carbs which suits our diet and also use a lot of coconut oil as it is highly nutritious, calorie dense, and easily digestible... it is closer to mother's milk in this respect and requires less enzymes and proteins to process.

1 cup of 3.25% milk has 103 calories and 8 grams of sugar while 2 tbsp of heavy cream has the same caloric energy via fats and no sugar... coconut oil is double that per tbsp and is one of the most easily digestible foods we could eat and has a fast energy return.

Chocolate milk is favoured by a lot of folks as it has three times as much sugar as regular milk and about as much sugar as a similar amount of soda.

"38 minutes of some bug eyed elderly lady on Japanese TV is hogwash"
....... Obviously you did not watch the video -- or you would know that your statement has no basis in reality or fact.

And, sorry that the video speared one of your (forgive the pun) sacred cows... But that was the whole point of the video: to debunk the myth put out there by the hundreds of millions of advertising dollars from the Dairy industry to convince the American public that milk is the PERFECT food...

The other thing the video did, if you actually watched it, was to demonstrate how the USDA is controlled by the industries it is supposed to regulate -- so it gets used as a mouth piece by the dairy industry and reinforces the myth. And it also uses tax payer dollars to subsidize those industries through such things as the WIC and school lunch programs.

Yes, it is true, milk has some good things in it (especially for growing kids) -- but it also has a lot of bad things in it that promote chronic diseases such as cancers, auto-immune diseases as well as heart disease.

What are these bad things you talk about? And is this a US problem or universal? If it's universal I would really like to have a few milk compunds (which cause cancer, autoimmune disease etc.) Named.

Milk is literally produced for the benefit of a specie's babies, whereas bananas are produced for the benefit of the banana plant, not for the benefit of monkeys. The only food we consume that was evolved for our benefit is the milk of our mothers. Everything else we eat is predation of other species. There are some instances where that's mutually beneficial, like the example of fruit I gave earlier. But even there the fruit was evolved for the benefit of the plant, not for the benefit of the animal that eats the fruit.

Most grains and many fruits (especially bananas) have been altered by cultivation by humans for thousands of years and are very different than the wild versions that existed prior to the development of agriculture. In this sense these foods have been artificially evolved during this time explicitly for the benefit of humans. The same is true for domesticated animals bred for food. This is one of the problems with the Paleo concept (it does have some good points IMO). Foods (plants and animals) commonly available for purchase today are very unlike those eaten 20,000 years ago.

Geeeez! I could see that with the chocolate and strawberry concoctions -- but not for regular "Milk"... When they say "milk" it should be milk. Period.

The jug of milk I have at home has only one ingredient," MILK" and that's it. It tastes like pure milk should taste, no sugar added...I've noticed that the sugar/carb content varies slightly between different brands but it's a very small difference of 1-2 grams.. Then there is a lactose-free and lactose reduced milk which has a much lower sugar/carb content.

Most grains and many fruits (especially bananas) have been altered by cultivation by humans for thousands of years and are very different than the wild versions that existed prior to the development of agriculture. In this sense these foods have been artificially evolved during this time explicitly for the benefit of humans. The same is true for domesticated animals bred for food. This is one of the problems with the Paleo concept (it does have some good points IMO). Foods (plants and animals) commonly available for purchase today are very unlike those eaten 20,000 years ago.

+1 good post...One of the popular foods which has been altered by humans are the Almonds...Wild almonds are extremely toxic and will kill a person. Sometimes a mutation will occur in nature which will produce an almond which is not poisonous. Ancient humans somehow learned to exploit those and eventually cultivate and breed them into edible non-toxic almonds.

Most grains and many fruits (especially bananas) have been altered by cultivation by humans for thousands of years and are very different than the wild versions that existed prior to the development of agriculture. In this sense these foods have been artificially evolved during this time explicitly for the benefit of humans. The same is true for domesticated animals bred for food. This is one of the problems with the Paleo concept (it does have some good points IMO). Foods (plants and animals) commonly available for purchase today are very unlike those eaten 20,000 years ago.

Agriculture is a fairly recent innovation in our history... the first known cultivation of wild crops dates back to 12,000 B.C. and we did not start the domestic production of things like wheat until 8500 B.C.

We have been selectively breeding crops and livestock for 10,000 years and now we have the ability to genetically modify crops and animals which are said to better suit our needs but in so many cases it seems to better suit the pocketbooks of Agribusiness.

We have not been drinking milk for that long save for what our momma's provided.

Those original strains of wheat that were first cultivated are still with us although they are grown in small quantities and are seeing some resurgence as people who cannot tolerate modern wheat look for alternatives.

The Emmer and Einkhorn wheat that modern wheat evolved from (relict crops) do not lend themselves to modern bread making and even durum wheat needs to have more gluten added to make it suitable for bread making.

Ok guys, guys!
I'm still really interested in the whole "why grains are bad for you?" thing.
Could you point out a few of the harmful substances in grains? I have a fair understanding of grains and I do not know of a single one which can be considered harmful in the concentrations found in grains.

If you're going on about carbs then so be it, that's just a lifestyle choice but what about the other substances

This line of thinking originated with another self-promoter who wrote a book based on the silly theory that the biblical staff of life is really, really bad for you. Sorry, I'm not going to link to it. But be afraid, be very afraid. Fear is a growth industry in this country. And yes, also be afraid of milk. Oh, and carbs. But raw meat and 30 bananas a day are perfectly fine.

+1 good post...One of the popular foods which has been altered by humans are the Almonds...Wild almonds are extremely toxic and will kill a person. Sometimes a mutation will occur in nature which will produce an almond which is not poisonous. Ancient humans somehow learned to exploit those and eventually cultivate and breed them into edible non-toxic almonds.

just about the most ignorant thing you could say about the link. You are 100% inaccurate with every single thing you said.
That's pretty impressive.

I didn't even watch it.

And as my grandfather might have said, if you take that tone with a cow you probably won't be on that stool for much longer.

You have this in your face way of communicating that must have made you popular in school. I'm going to say it and that's all I will say it...

I will die as I see fit. It still ain't too popular with me to die, but having almost left twice, I'm just not going to push it, because there's nothing to push at that point.

Your concern for others' health has turned into some little act of terrorism in the process. When any of us die nobody goes there with us. You have nothing to fear from our deaths. You may feel sorrow but ultimately you have no effect on my death or anyone elses.

Do I want to live as long as I can? You BET! But nobody handed me a boarding pass to the the train to heaven and said be here at this time.

So stop screaming. Your comment about mucus was uncivil and uncalled for. Grossing people out is not good PR. You crossed the line and damaged your message.

I just cut all margarine from my home cooking, of which I already used less and less of each month and I replaced it with butter. I didn't put a ton of it on the potato I just microwaved either.

This thread seems to have the A&S Disease, where advocacy becomes bashing at some point, and I don't think you've ever seen me on A&S. You can't spread information with us vs them. It wears thin.

That is all I will add right now. Take some time to learn advocacy, not warfare.

What Sixty-Fiver has stated has also been stated by several professional cyclists and it's true. Chocolate milk is an excellent way to replenish vital nutrients and minerals following a hard ride as well as needed energy from it's calories.

Where all the garbage about what does the cow think about being killed to be food came from has no bearing of the topic of the thread. Diversion is a lazy argument and a poor rebuttal. It has no more use than what does the elk think about the wolves. Elk herds are not meant to get really large...etc, they overpower and ruin the balance of the ecosystem and that's the purpose of predators, to promote balance. Feral cows? Considering that they were imported and that not many species of cattle actually existed in North America prior to the English settlement, consider that we are here to manage the cattle. All animals DIE.

Watched clips. Were bad. Very bad. As in badly made and irritating full of BS anecdotes and such.
Also the "documentary" seemed to concentrate on US milk health problems. I don't really care about US food and it's problems (antibiotics, hormones etc) since I live in Europe. If I were to visit (which I wont) I would probably bring my own food

But Yeah! did some research on the whole bad compounds in milk. One substance got highlighted = the A1/A2 protein aka beta-casomorphin-7. Supposedly the BCM-7 in A1 milk is bad for you, causes heart disease, type 1 diabetes, schizophrenia, autism and a host of other problems. The A2 milk didn't have this problem. There were studies which kinda confirmed the results but there were also more recent studies which were better conducted with larger test groups which showed no correlation whatsoever with BCM-7 to negative health results.

Also, the person who wrote the whole fearbook about BCM-7 and A1/A2 milk is a professor yes, but not in biology, epidomology or anything alike. He is a professor of Farm Management and Agribusiness. There was also some talk about a New Zealand A2 cattle company.

The type 1 diabetes claim may be legit for infants under 4 months. But there are some variances here, none of which have been confirmed as more than risk factors if that.
1) the BCM-7. Well, it was shown that the BCM-7 isn't actually a risk factor for humans. It even gave good results as a diabetes treatment so... But the bottom line seems to be that the autoimmune type 1 diabetics may have a sensitivity to many other food proteins, hence they create antibodies for said proteins. Healthy children outside risk groups do not create said antibodies.
2) bovine insulin in milk. This may be the more important factor if milk does in fact cause risks for type 1. But this is again about the autoimmune sensitivity and the prevalence to create antibodies against proteins and hormones.

All in all the adverse health effects (if they even exist) are far from proven. My personal opinion is that the BCM-7 thing seems like a scam. Too much speculation with statistics and too little actual medical information.
And as afun fact. He uses a lot of Finnish disease statistics to support his proof. Finland drinks a lot of milk and also has the largest amount type 1 diabetes per capita in the world. However milk consumption here has stayed at same levels even when type 1 diagnoses have increase by 3% annually. Kinda wrecks the correlation a bit but let's not that stop the fear mongering.

Watched clips. Were bad. Very bad. As in badly made and irritating full of BS anecdotes and such.
Also the "documentary" seemed to concentrate on US milk health problems. I don't really care about US food and it's problems (antibiotics, hormones etc) since I live in Europe. If I were to visit (which I wont) I would probably bring my own food

But Yeah! did some research on the whole bad compounds in milk. One substance got highlighted = the A1/A2 protein aka beta-casomorphin-7. Supposedly the BCM-7 in A1 milk is bad for you, causes heart disease, type 1 diabetes, schizophrenia, autism and a host of other problems. The A2 milk didn't have this problem. There were studies which kinda confirmed the results but there were also more recent studies which were better conducted with larger test groups which showed no correlation whatsoever with BCM-7 to negative health results.

Also, the person who wrote the whole fearbook about BCM-7 and A1/A2 milk is a professor yes, but not in biology, epidomology or anything alike. He is a professor of Farm Management and Agribusiness. There was also some talk about a New Zealand A2 cattle company.

The type 1 diabetes claim may be legit for infants under 4 months. But there are some variances here, none of which have been confirmed as more than risk factors if that.
1) the BCM-7. Well, it was shown that the BCM-7 isn't actually a risk factor for humans. It even gave good results as a diabetes treatment so... But the bottom line seems to be that the autoimmune type 1 diabetics may have a sensitivity to many other food proteins, hence they create antibodies for said proteins. Healthy children outside risk groups do not create said antibodies.
2) bovine insulin in milk. This may be the more important factor if milk does in fact cause risks for type 1. But this is again about the autoimmune sensitivity and the prevalence to create antibodies against proteins and hormones.

All in all the adverse health effects (if they even exist) are far from proven. My personal opinion is that the BCM-7 thing seems like a scam. Too much speculation with statistics and too little actual medical information.
And as afun fact. He uses a lot of Finnish disease statistics to support his proof. Finland drinks a lot of milk and also has the largest amount type 1 diabetes per capita in the world. However milk consumption here has stayed at same levels even when type 1 diagnoses have increase by 3% annually. Kinda wrecks the correlation a bit but let's not that stop the fear mongering.

Sorry that you found the film irritating...

But you criticize it for "highlighting" something called 'the A1/A2 protein BCM-7' -- which is confusing because the film never mentioned that protein or anything about it... That stuff, whatever it is, may be bad for you -- but the film never mentioned it... It mentioned a lot of other stuff -- but not that.

Nor did it mention "bovine insulin in milk"... Again, that may be bad for you. But the film did not mention it.

You are right that it did not go into a lot of the science behind its claims (which is not to say the science does not exist). But it was not made as a scientific paper -- it was made as a popular film to debunk the myth pushed on us by the dairy industry that milk is "the perfect food".

But you criticize it for "highlighting" something called 'the A1/A2 protein BCM-7' -- which is confusing because the film never mentioned that protein or anything about it... That stuff, whatever it is, may be bad for you -- but the film never mentioned it... It mentioned a lot of other stuff -- but not that.

Nor did it mention "bovine insulin in milk"... Again, that may be bad for you. But the film did not mention it.

You are right that it did not go into a lot of the science behind its claims (which is not to say the science does not exist). But it was not made as a scientific paper -- it was made as a popular film to debunk the myth pushed on us by the dairy industry that milk is "the perfect food".

Yeah my response could have been clearer. I found the doc too sensationalist and clutching at straws. So I did my own research on the matter.

And the US dairy industry can push the fact that milk is the perfect food. No food is perfect but milk is pretty darn good by today's standards. But milk like everything is best in moderation.

And just to be clear.
The BCM-7 is not bad for you. No science supports it.
The bovine insulin is really only potentially bad for infants. And even then it is still unclear whether even that is true. It might be that milk speeds up the onset of type 1 for those who would get it anyway. Or it could cause it to infants who are in the risk group. It does not seem to have an effect on those out of the risk groups.
But you never really know about type 1 diabetes. Some people seem to "know" why some get type 1 and some don't but for science it's still a mystery. Could be vitamin D, genetics, viral infection causing a gene corruption. But you can never actually tell what caused someone to get type 1 (it's not always clear with other diseases either but if you get a smoker with COPD it should not be a mystery what caused it)